Michael

Do you guys think one would notice the difference between a 2.8 and a 3.5 lense? Last night I was playing with a 28-70mm on my D200 and I coudln't go lower than 4.5--since of course the lense is a 4.5. That bothered me. So, would 3.5 be that much different? How about the different between 2.8 and 3.5?

Curb Zone

 

AhlgrenGraphics

with a lower lens aperture you can have higher exposure time, but the lower you go the more bluryer the background will be (the none focused part)

Michael

Yeah I am aware of the blurry background. You are basically doing away with depth of field. Hmmm...I don't know. I guess one could not really notice the difference between 2.8 and 3.5.

NevadaJack

That's only a half stop Michael so really not that important unless you really do a lot of low light interiors and need all the exposure you can get. From f/4 or f/4.5 to f/2.8 then there is a full stop difference and that one could notice. Depending on the lens design the bokeh could be better on the f/4 than the f/2.8 but the bokeh also depends on the distance of the background from the subject.

We are talking about the shooter here and not the results to the viewer of course.

Curb Zone